Re: Making background psql nicer to use in tap tests

Hi,

On 2023-04-07 11:52:37 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2023-04-07 15:32:12 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> >> I don't think we should go ahead with a patch that refactors interactive_psql
> >> only to SKIP over it in CI (which is what the tab_completion test does now), so
> >> let's wait until we have that sorted before going ahead.
>
> > Maybe I am a bit confused, but isn't that just an existing requirement? Why
> > would we expect this patchset to change what dependencies use of
> > interactive_psql() has?
>
> It is an existing requirement, but only for a test that's not too
> critical. If interactive_psql starts getting used for more interesting
> things, we might be sad that the coverage is weak.

I don't really expect it to be used for non-critical things - after all,
interactive_psql() also depends on psql being built with readline support,
which we traditionally don't have on windows... For most tasks background_psql
should suffice...

> Having said that, weak coverage is better than no coverage. I don't
> think this point should be a show-stopper for committing.

Yea.

One thing I wonder is whether we should have a central function for checking
if interactive_psql() is available, instead of copying 010_tab_completion.pl's
logic for it into multiple tests. But that could come later too.

Greetings,

Andres Freund